Re: Are Director's Calls mandatory for LCCR?

(This is ISSUE-50 - thanks for raising that Art).

On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 21:07:49 +0100, Arthur Barstow <>  

> On 10/31/13 3:13 PM, ext Stephen Zilles wrote:
>> The Process Document, both the current one and the proposed change,  
>> require the Director's Approval. The means by which this approval is  
>> obtained has always been up to the Director. There is no change being  
>> proposed.
> The current practice is that no Director's call is required when a LCWD  
> is published, however, a Director's call is required before a CR is  
> published. If these two `maturity levels` are combined, will a  
> Director's call be required or not to publish a LCCR?

Yes, typically I expect a director's call to take place. The flip side of  
giving groups fewer hurdles is that they get responsibility for getting  
into position to cross them.

Part of the goal is to encourage groups to get their specs reviewed,  
preferably including by test implementation, before going to LCCR. Going  
to LC when the Working Group still has unresolved issues is explicitly  
made into a bad practice - the issues need to be resolved at least to the  
level of declaring things "At Risk" or not, rather than still resolving  
stuff while other people who have not been involved in the development  
process are trying to review it.

If a group requests a third LCCR, I expect the Director will ask if their  
spec is *really* ready for LCCR before even agreeing to hold a transition  

> You seem to be saying "well, it depends" and that seems like a Really  
> Bad Answer so surely I must be missing something.

In principle, it depends on what the director wants - and always has. In  
practice, the answer is "Yes there will be a transition call". The  
document now sets expectations for the typical case.



Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex         Find more at

Received on Tuesday, 5 November 2013 07:28:34 UTC